ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025720
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Chef | A Gastropub |
Representatives | N/A | N/A |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00032756-001 | 05/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/12/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 10th April 2010 and was paid a gross salary of €608.42 per week. He was notified on 26th September 2019 that his employment would terminate on 24th October 2019 by reason of redundancy. He is claiming that he did not receive his full redundancy entitlement. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that he was notified on 26th September 2019 that his employment would terminate on 24th October 2019 by reason of redundancy. He claimed that he was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of €11,188.91 as a result but alleged that he only received €10,000 of this - €5,000 of which was paid on 6th November 2019 and a further €5,000 paid on 14th November 2019. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent acknowledged that he had only paid the complainant €10,000 in respect of his redundancy entitlements and agreed that he would make up any shortfall. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states: For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to – (a) The fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business in the place where the employee was so employed, or (b) The fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 based on the following facts established in evidence: Start date: 10th April 2010 Termination Date: 24th October 2019 Gross weekly wage: €608.42 While I note that the respondent has paid the complainant €10,000 in respect of his entitlements, I find that there is a shortfall between what he should have received and what was paid to him. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
The appeal under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2014 is allowed and I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Start date: 10th April 2010 Termination Date: 24th October 2019 Gross weekly wage: €608.42 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period and must recognise that the complainant has already received €10,000 in respect of his statutory redundancy entitlements. |
Dated: 10th February 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Acts- shortfall- redundancy entitlements |